From the Daily News:Rent protections for thousands of higher-income city residents would be gutted under a bill quietly introduced by Senate Republicans last week.
The bill sponsored by Senate Housing Committee Chairwoman Catharine Young (R-Cattaraugus County) would ease the requirement that rents must reach $2,000 a month before an apartment can be deregulated.
"This is nightmare legislation for tenants," said Travis Proulx, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic Conference. "It strikes at the heart of efforts to preserve affordable housing."
Current laws dictate that rent-stabilized apartments can be deregulated when rents reach $2,000 and tenants' income exceeds $175,000 for two consecutive years.
Young's bill would eliminate the rent threshold and allow deregulation if the tenant's income averaged $175,000 over two years.
Assembly Democrats want to raise the de-control trigger to $3,000 monthly rent and $300,000 in annual income.
Yes, I know what you're thinking... WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE MAKING 200,000 NEED RENT CONTROLLED APARTMENTS AND WHY DO SOME WANT TO RAISE THE LIMIT TO 300,000?
38 comments:
Yeah, but if it wasn't for rent control keeping my rent low all those years in Flushing I couldn't have saved enough to buy my apartment in Little Neck. My rent only went from 625 to 775 over 13 years.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Bloomberg is pulling some of the strings on this one behind the scenes, you can bet.
Scum buns like him and his real estate industry pals, want to see NYC become an elite private club residence, where only people earning at least $600,000 a year will be admitted.
Bloomberg will be gone shortly.
But he's intent on pulling out all the stops...so as to inflict as much damage as he can to our city's affordable rent system...before he leaves office.
That way, after he's gone, his real estate developer friends can benefit thereafter...for a very, very long time.
This Bloomberg "legacy" will then become permanent!
Well Kevin, you weren't making $200,000 per year, is my point.
Kevin, it's great that it worked out for you, but that's not the purpose of rent control - stabilization.
If rent control were abolished the middle class would desert the city entirely and the whole city would be either luxury housing or ghettos. The affordable rents would be raised out of sight...
...exactly what Bloomberg seems to wish for.
www.forgotten-ny.com
I don't get it. You complain about illegal converted apts and rooms and then want the single largest program that provides LEGAL affordable apts to be gutted once again. The deal is, move the people with high incomes out, but don't remove the apt from rent stabilization because once you do that, it never comes back.
One more thing. Most LUXURY rentals ARE rent stabilized because the developers opt in for tax abatements. But those rents start at higher than $2,000 so only higher income people are getting the benefits of rent stabilization while the poor and especially the middle class support the republicans who continue to screw them.
Be ignorant if you want, but there is one way to actually get rid of rent stabilization. The program is triggered off if the vacancy rate in NYC goes over a certain percentage so why not just build enough apts? Why? Because a higher supply will lower rents over all.
Get rid of rent stabilization and the only affordable rents will be offered by illegal apt conversions.
No, the point is to find an apartment in a neighborhood that is within your means and if you can't, then shack up with a roommate. It's funny how I managed to live doing this for 20 years. I didn't demand a place on the Upper East Side for $400 a month, when rents there are usually $3000+. I lived in Queens in a one bedroom for $1000 a month. It didn't break my bank.
Queens Crapper said...
No, the point is to find an apartment in a neighborhood that is within your means and if you can't, then shack up with a roommate."
Oh brother are you ever naive.
The upper east side is full of deregulated apts, and guess what? When the rents go sky high one bedroom units now have 4-5 people in them.
All that deregulation accomplishes is to impoverish the many so that a few leeches who bought buildings (with others money) can get rich.
What this article points out CLEARLY is the stark conflict of interest in all republicans with regard to their constituents.
Any non-wealthy person who votes republican is a FOOL.
Sounds like a DOB problem, not a GOP problem. We shouldn't be regulating rents based on neighborhood. Why are people on the upper east side paying $200/mo rent while people in Elmhurst are paying $1500?
"Why are people on the upper east side paying $200/mo rent while people in Elmhurst are paying $1500?'
$200/mo -where. Almost all of those people are gone.
The reason rents go up in ANY area is simply because people move out and with gutted regulations (Albany/Bruno/Pataki) they can be increased to whatever the traffic will bear.
Your blog often documents these illegal conversions a the tragedies that occur. If we still had real rent regulations the "pack em in" pressure would be much less.
Another point here was made by Kevin Walsh..and it's an important one.
Rent control permits the middle and working class to save for a house, their kid's education and a helps with retirement. All the "market rate" does is bleed these people dry so that in the end they have to take on huge debt to but a place (if they can even qualify) and as they age many will have to rely on government services because they couldn't save enough during their earning years.
The republicans pose the issue of rent regulation as a sort of ideological issue...The reality is simply that the New York gop gets a lot of money and in many areas owes it's existence to landlord largess.
People like this State Senator are just sneaky whores. Nothing else.
Pardon me, but the reason you have firetrap cellar apartments is because of greed, illegal immigration and absentee landlords. Rent regulation has nothing to do with it. And I think the whores are the people making $200,000/yr who are living in rent controlled apartments while others are working 18 hours a day to make ends meet.
beware of the commenters attempting to put blame on the GOP, for this rent situation.
they are Masters of Deceit, trying to promote class warfare.
it is not that simple of a problem.
if the GOP, alone ,was the blame ,why are all n.y.c. democrats going to jail, and being investigated by the U.S.Attorney's Office ?
Queens Crapper said...
Pardon me, but the reason you have firetrap cellar apartments is because of greed, illegal immigration and absentee landlords. Rent regulation has nothing to do with it."
Sorry Q-C, it has a lot to do with it.
Today with so many units having been lost to deregulation (again Bruno-Pataki) the poor and lower working class have to bunch up in whatever accommodations they can afford.
You wrote:"the point is to find an apartment in a neighborhood that is within your means and if you can't, then shack up with a roommate.'
That is exactly what is happening here. Only even those shitty conversions have become expensive so multiple occupancy is inevitable.
Yes, immigration, legal and otherwise are factors...Blame those who hire them and create the market for their labor.
But uncontrolled rents have led to a severe bifurcation of housing in our City. The wealthy can afford some space of their own, and everyone else has to bunch up to afford a place reasonably near where they work.
The gop's deliberate weakening of rent regulations is one major factor directly responsible for this.
The problem is with the phrase "reasonably near". Most transplants wouldn't be caught dead living outside Manhattan, which they can't afford. No one is forcing them to live in Manhattan, its their choice. They could just as well live affordably in NJ or an outer borough. I for one am sick of subsidizing Manhattan lifestyles. I would consider a comfortable apartment in Woodside to be "reasonably near" Midtown. They wouldn't. That's the problem.
No one has ever made a case for keeping rent control / stabilization inatct for the benefit of new arrivals, only for the benefit of incumbents. It does not create affordable housing, it only keeps it intact for the people who already have it. It's got to go, but not through luxury decontrol, but rather through vacancy decontrol - that way no one is thrown out on the street.
i'm with Q-C, and am amazed at how many of you are arguing with his point. NO ONE making 200K a year should receive rent controlled housing. How can anyone justify that?????
Albany Assembly, controlled by Democrats, always vote for rent control. With rent-regulation expiring this year, the Democrats who had control of the State Senate for two years 2008-2010, could have renewed rent-regulation laws, even strenghthening them had they chosen to, but they didn't, because they, too are in bed with developers and real-estate moguls.
Now that they no longer control the State Senate, watch them scream for rent-control renewal; watch them blame the Republicans.
Decontrol means lower & middle income people couldn't move, affordable housing in NYC would soon cease to exist!
Rent control was supposed to be temporary fix to the housing crisis after WW2. WW2 was over in 1945. It's 2011. Why is this still on the books?
Queens Crapper said...
"Most transplants wouldn't be caught dead living outside Manhattan,'
OK, so then when they move to LIC or Astoria they are regarded as interlopers and "hipsters".
The revolving door situation of young people coming here and burning out from the high cost of living has gotten worse over the last 14 years and vacancy decontrol is a big part of that.
Take a look at what happens to apartments where decontrol has occurred and rents go to whatever the market will bear. Most people live one-three years and move on.
I talk to young people every day and rent is the prime reason they give up on our City.
"I for one am sick of subsidizing Manhattan lifestyles."
How does rent regulation subsidize Manhattan lifestyles.
Abolishing regulations is just like trying to feed a cancer to keep it from eating you alive.
Rents in Queens would not come down. All that would happen is the landlord industry would have even more money to throw around.
Did you hear of their proposal two years ago? They wanted to abolish 2 year leases and establish one year as the norm. Follow their sick thinking and soon leases would be month-to-month.
Housing, and certain food basics are essentials and must be regulated in a high demand place such as New York.
OK, so then when they move to LIC or Astoria they are regarded as interlopers and "hipsters".
So what? I am talking about affordability, not whether or not they feel welcome. And hipsters aren't moving to LIC, yuppies are. The rents in LIC are high, too.
Rents in Queens would not come down. All that would happen is the landlord industry would have even more money to throw around.
When do rents ever come down? Not in my lifetime. They may stagnate for awhile, but do not go down. So explain to me again why I should subsidize a Manhattanite's rent so they can have an easy commute to work and a happier social life?
"So explain to me again why I should subsidize a Manhattanite's rent"
Would you please explain how New York City and State rent law has you subsidizing anyone?
Unless you are a landlord, I don't see where you have standing for this claim.
BTW: There are no doubt plenty of regulated units in Queens as well.
Easy. The low rents are offered to people who don't deserve them, which means taxpayers are footing the bill for more people in Section 8 and in housing projects. Because some $200,000 yuppie wants a $500 apartment.
Wow the republicans have brainwashed a whole bunch of you.
not related at all but....i hate those projects/public housing...what an eyesore!?!?!? the Bronx used to be beautiful..damn you Robert Moses..damn you!!
"Queens Crapper said...
Easy. The low rents are offered to people who don't deserve them, which means taxpayers are footing the bill for more people in Section 8 and in housing projects."
I don't know where people get this sort of nonsense.
When apartments go unregulated the rent soars to a point well beyond what Sec.8 types will afford.
Why not read and actually know what you are talking about.
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/guide/basics.html
Why would someone averaging $175,000 a year need to subsidized by my tax dollars for anything! How about a nice new car, want me to help you with payments on that too.
The point is that if the appropriate people had been living in those rent-controlled apartments in the first place (the truly needy instead of those scamming the system), they would not have become deregulated in the first place.
WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE MAKING 200,000 NEED RENT CONTROL?
They don't. This mostly an issue in Manhattan where huge apartments are in the hands of a few because of this - if the same apartment came to market without controls - it would fetch 10x more rent.
At the end of the day, rent control was to provide protection to those making modest salaries but got abused upping the ceiling on salary requirements to remain in these apartment while purchasing expensive vacation homes elsewhere! These folks should be removed from rent control entirely and free up these apartments to those who really need it and the freed volume would significantly increase housing while helping sales of apartments hat the former rent control tenants purchase (THEY SAVED SO MUCH MONEY OVER THE YEARS RIGHT?)
You know at first I was thinking not of rent control but of rent stablization.
Rent control (around since the 50) is a severe way of limiting rent hikes if you lived (or family) in the same place since 50-60s. Lots of folks abuse this program - typical rents are no higher than 120-200 per month!
So if you were the property owner when this was enacted, you lost major rental income and could not sell your building without buying out tenents for huge $$ windfalls to deregulate the building by tearing it down and building a luxury building instead.
They say there are 50K apartments located in the hottest areas that are rent control. Typically these areas are the UWS, some UES, the West Village, Tribeca, Chelsea, Gramercy, East Village and Harlem.
So what if they kicked out all the 200K tenants paying 175 per month and gave the apartments to those making 70K and up the rent to 1,300 and place it under rent stabilization rules which provide for reasonable increases over time and deregulated the apartment when the rent reached 2K?
I say if you can't pay or don't want to pay big rent if you have the means to do so in Manhattan let not allow it to occur on the backs of the tax payers from Queens and elsewhere subsidizing the rent of the rich!
In fact if you don't want to pay the market rate to remain in Manhattan move to Kansas City instead!!!
My last comment - As a home owner I elected to be invested where I live and take a chance that my property could increase in value over time.
All that is debatable of course especially from those who bought just prior to the burst housing bubble.
But as far as regulation of apartment rents - there are few rent stablization apartments left in Queens so this really a Manhattan issue.
So I am a firm believer that deregulation will allow the free market to sort out what needs to occur in Manhattan as it did elsewhere in NYC.
The net effect of 50K apartments released will be a rise in rent in the deregulated apartments without the right of a permanent lease. Because of this class of older class of apartments others like them that became deregulated because of death or moves may see an overall effect of lowered asking rents across the board allowing certain residents with much lower incomes being able to remain in their apartments.
This has certainly brought out a lot of real estate industry cockroaches.
These trolls are busily posting.
My hat's off to you "Crapper".
You've lured them out of their nests.
Now let's grab a can of "Raid" and get 'em all while they're logged onto this site!
"would consider a comfortable apartment in Woodside"
you mean where the landlord provides heat, hot water, extermination of roaches & bedbugs and is not insane? where would that be?
What I don't understand is why upstate people even care about this issue. I doubt that there are alot of apartment buildings in their district. Yet another reason for NYC to secede!
No one seems to remember Gov.Rocksfeller reinstating rent stabilization because NY landlords went berserk which actually is worse now with Vacantacy Decontrol. When someone moves rent will go from i.e. $800 50 2,000 plus legally and illegally. If you have an hour I might be able to tell you all their tricks.
Also you forget what happened in Boston. The Mayor begged the citizens to put back.
ALSO - RENT STABILIZATION IS ACTUALLY TENANT PROTECTION LAWS. WITHOUT THEM THE LANDLORD CAN DO ANYTHING TO YOU.
CRAPPY YOU DISAPPOINTED ME - YOU SWALLOWED THE PROPAGANDER HOOK LINE AND SINKER.
Anonymous #16 asks:
"you mean where the landlord provides heat, hot water, extermination of roaches & bedbugs and is not insane? where would that be?"
In answer:
The landlord must provide heat and hot water as well as provide for extermination of vermin.
This information and more can be found at NYC Rent Guidelines Board here:
http://www.housingnyc.com/
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html#hot
As for "is not insane", well...there's a fine line between genius and madness so let's just file that under caveat emptor.
Here's some fun facts from
https://www1.dhcr.state.ny.us/BuildingSearch/popup.aspx
Sooooooo unless you've been living in a building built before 1947, living there continuously since before July 1971, it isn't rent controlled but rent stabilized.
To have a really low cost rent stabilized apt one would have to get it just after the original tenant left and the landlord can only increase the rent by 17%. That would suggest this tenant had qualifying family in that building or a very good contact or lottery-level lucky.
Not too many people presently looking for an apartment really benefit from this arrangement. The only time I ever looked at a rent stabilized apartment in Flushing(full disclosure: I had a good contact), the rent really wasn't all that much lower than market rate. I didn't take it, the parking sucked.
The idea that someone making $175,000 per year should be able to take advantage of rent control/stabilization is absolutely absurd.
So what's all the fuss about?
Post a Comment